Kyle and her husband moved to Brookfield in 1986. She became active in local politics and started blogging in 2004. Her focus is primarily on local issues but often includes state and national topics, too. Kyle looks at things from the taxpayers' perspective in a creative, yet down to earth way, addressing them from a practical point of view.

http://mail.google.com/mail/?shva=1#all/12014af38cb402dc (direct link availbale just click title when on page)

Speaking to House Democrats at their Kingsmill Resort & Spa retreat last month, President
Barack Obama defended his economic stimulus plan, claiming:
“[We] are not going to get relief by
turning back to the same policies that for the last eight years doubled
the national debt and threw our economy into a tailspin. … If
you’re headed for a cliff, you’ve got to change direction.” Our public
policy definitely needs a change in direction. But the Obama
Administration’s budget is not a change in direction. Instead, it is a
foot on the accelerator taking us off that cliff.
Consider:

The only sharp break President Obama takes away from President Bush is the amount of money he takes from the
American people. President Bush reduced taxes by approximately $2 trillion; President Obama has proposed raising taxes by $1.4
trillion.
Yet even after taking $1.4 trillion more out of the private sector,
Obama’s budget still would double the public debt level to
$15.4 trillion. Between 2008 and 2013, the budget will add $5.7
trillion ($48,000 per U.S. household) in new government debt. The
annual interest on
this debt would nearly equal the entire U.S. defense budget by 2019.

Summarizing his findings Heritage Foundation Senior Policy Analyst Brian Riedl writes: “President Obama has framed his budget as
a break from the “failed policies” of the Bush Admin­istration. Actually, his budget doubles down on President George W. Bush’s
borrow, spend, and bail­out policies.”

Following a premeditated White House campaign to demonize Rush Limbaugh, Newsweek aided the left’s “Hush Rush” campaign with a cover story pushing for Rush to be silenced. Now Rush can handle criticism from the White House and Newsweek
just fine. But there was also a little noticed vote in the Senate late
last month that could enable the left to accomplish by government
regulation what they could never accomplish with actual debate.

During the debate over the unconstitutional bill
that would give the District of Columbia a vote in the House of
Representatives, Sens. Jim DeMint (R-SC) and Dick Durbin (D-IL) each
sponsored amendments with major implications for the First Amendment.
DeMint’s amendment banned the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
from reinstituting the Fairness Doctrine which, prior to 1987, was used
by the government to stifle free speech on our nation’s airwaves. DeMint’s amendment passed 87-11. Score one for free speech.

The true intention of the Durbin
Doctrine could not be more clear. Its language is modeled after a
Center for American Progress report that aims to fix “The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio.” And just two years ago, Durbin told The Hill:
“It’s time to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine. I have this
old-fashioned attitude that when Americans hear both sides of the
story, they’re in a better position to make a decision.”

Durbin’s commitment to squelching free speech has not diminished at
all since that 2007 statement. But Durbin has gotten smarter. He knows
that reinstating the old Fairness Doctrine is a non-starter so he has
come up with a new but equally pernicious law that will accomplish the
exact same thing. Conservatives need to wise up in the fight for free
speech. The Fairness Doctrine is dead. The real threat is the Durbin
Doctrine.

On Friday, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs was asked about
that recommendation, something the Obama administration supports, he
indicated.

Gibbs said President Obama’s position on benefits for same-sex couples
“remains the same” as it was during the campaign. “The president would
work with Congress in order to…institute what he promised he’d do in
the campaign,” Gibbs said at the Friday press briefing.

During the presidential campaign, Obama said that while he does not
support same-sex marriage, he does support repeal of the Defense of
Marriage Act, which defines marriage as the union of one man and one
woman in federal law.

In an Aug. 1, 2008 letter to a Boston-based homosexual advocacy group,
the Family Equality Council, Obama specifically pledged to use the
presidency to overturn DOMA – and pledged his support for homosexual
“families” and efforts to totally redefine marriage.

Under DOMA, the federal government may provide health benefits only to opposite-sex partners of married employees.

In December 2007, Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) introduced a bill
that would have provided a federal employee and his or her domestic
partner with the same benefits available to a married federal employee
and his or her spouse. Barack Obama, a U.S. senator at the time, was a
co-sponsor of Lieberman’s bill, which died without coming to a vote.

Lieberman and Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) reportedly plan to introduce similar bills in the current Congress.

Under Lieberman’s 2007 legislation, same-sex domestic partners of
federal employees would have been eligible to participate in health
benefits, long-term care, Family and Medical Leave, and federal
retirement benefits.

Federal employees and their domestic partners also would have been
subject to the same responsibilities that apply to married employees
and their spouses, such as anti-nepotism rules and financial disclosure
requirements.

The Office of Personnel Management has estimated that the cost of
health benefits for domestic partners of federal employees would be
$670 million over ten years.

Earlier this month, President Obama named John Berry as his choice for
OPM director. According to the Web site GayPolitics.com, Berry “would
be the first openly gay director of OPM and one of the highest-ranking
openly gay presidential appointees in history.”

Obama Orders the Destruction of Human Embryos

by Lawrence Ford*

In
a significant move to distance himself from the moral conservatives of
the country, President Barack Obama on March 9 ordered that federal
money (taxpayer money) be used to promote medical research using
harvested embryonic stem cells from humans.

Dr. Randy Guliuzza, a medical doctor and National Representative at
the Institute for Creation Research, commented this week on the Obama
decision:

The consequences of the president’s decision are two-fold.
First, government is now more empowered to destroy human life for
“scientific” progress. Will research on human embryos result in
advances in medicine? Possibly, but the fruit of stem cell research
using cells safely harvested from umbilical cords or adults is already
being used to save lives. Destroying the unborn is both unnecessary and
morally reprehensible.

In short, President Obama’s reversal of the embryonic stem cell ban
sentences these embryos to the category of disposable life, a clear
indicator that the president values the free exercise of science over
the life of the unborn.

But there is much more to the president’s decision. Dr. Guliuzza continued:

Second, this announcement is very likely designed to be a
sideshow, a distraction to draw attention away from a much larger
agenda he is pushing on the American people: empowering an atheist
scientific elite who conduct research by consensus. Studies have shown
that a tiny minority of scientists profess belief in God, only 7
percent among members of the National Academy of Sciences. The
president clearly knows that his emphasis on “scientific integrity”
will be governed by atheists.

Of course, this is in contrast to the approximately 80 percent of
Americans who profess belief in God, and the 66 percent who believe God
created the world in 6 days about 10,000 years ago.1

The consequences of the president’s decision are staggering. Dr. Guliuzza concluded:

With that kind of power, death to embryos is just the first step and who knows where it will end?

President Barack Obama’s speech at yesterday’s White House Health
Care Forum included a number of statements that are either false or
highly misleading. Unfortunately yesterday was not the first time we
heard these statements from the White House. Some fact checking is in
order:

The figure comes from a 2005 Harvard University study
saying that 54 percent of bankruptcies in 2001 were caused by health
expenses. We reviewed it internally and knocked it down at the time; an
academic reviewer did the same in 2006. Recalculating Harvard’s own
data, he came up with a far lower figure – 17 percent.
…
The extrapolation of Harvard’s data to “a bankruptcy every 30 seconds,”
which Obama also mentioned in his address to a joint session of
Congress last month, comes, per the White House, from a 2005 Washington
Post op-ed by Prof. Elizabeth Warren, a co-author of the Harvard paper.
Fact-check.org
has noted that even using Harvard’s numbers, it’s more like a
bankruptcy every minute; indeed if you add up all bankrputcies in a
year you barely get one every 30 seconds. (I’ve e-mailed Warren for
comment.) But more to the point is that the Harvard data are clearly
inflated, or at best, mischaracterized.

We’re confused … is his health care plan “fully paid for” and “does
not add one penny to our deficit” or “will more be required.” And if
“more” is required, will that also be “fully paid for” or will pennies
be added to our deficit? And if not deficit spending, where will the
money come from?

In 2004, a younger Barack Obama sat down with a reporter from the Windy City Times
and made no secret of his disgust over laws that protect traditional
marriage. "When Members of Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act,
they were not interested in strengthening family values or protecting
civil liberties. They were only interested in perpetuating division...
Despite my own feelings about an abhorrent law, the realities of modern politics persist."

If
the latest reports are any indication, those "realities" are about to
face their biggest test yet. Two federal appeals court judges in
California have launched a fierce strike on DOMA, ordering the federal
government in two separate cases to disregard its own law and provide
health benefits for the same-sex partners of federal employees. The
rulings, which smack of judicial activism, are a direct challenge to
the Defense of Marriage Act which defines the word "spouse" as a person
of the opposite sex. Initially, Uncle Sam's HR department--the federal
Office of Personnel Management (OPM)--fired back, directing insurers
not to comply with the court orders because they violate federal law.
Now, the decision to act may have fallen in President Obama's lap,
leaving him to choose between ignoring the court and implementing his
extreme social policy.

Although the President's tone may have
drastically changed since 2004, his agenda has not. Even the White
House website hints at where the administration will lean. "Obama also
believes we need to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and enact
legislation that would ensure that the 1,100+ federal legal rights and
benefits currently provided on the basis of marital status..."

With
John Berry, the first openly homosexual Director of OPM, on one side
and dipping approval ratings on the other, Obama will have to decide if
he's willing to make such a high-stakes gamble with the public's
goodwill. Of course, there are plenty of reasons not to tamper with
DOMA. Apart from being morally challenged, the idea is bad on economic
grounds. Estimates put the cost of federal same-sex partner benefits at
roughly $670 million over the next decade.

If the President
wants to avoid a messy political battle and steer clear of violating
the grassroots' trust, the White House has plenty of precedent to lean
on in refusing the order. In 2007, the Department of Labor withstood a
similar assault and won the right to refuse these same benefits on the
grounds that DOMA bars the government from recognizing same-sex
"marriage." At its heart, the debate over what constitutes marriage
should be a matter of congressional and voter review-not judicial fiat.
Laws like DOMA cannot be subject to the whims of two liberal judges,
else--like marriage--those laws would soon hold no meaning.

To
voice your concerns, call the White House switchboard at 202-456-1111
and ask President Obama to respect the values of mainstream America.
For more on this subject, tune in to my interview on CNN's "AC 360"
with Anderson Cooper, tonight at 10:00 p.m. EST.

This site uses Facebook comments to make it easier for you to contribute. If you see a comment you would like to flag for spam or abuse, click the "x" in the upper right of it. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use.